A Genovese crime family associate made an argument that he thought the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) couldn't refuse. In a 7-2 split decision, SCOTUS rejected Salvatore Delligatti's contention that he couldn't be sentenced under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (VICAR) if he didn't commit a violent act. Delligatti was looking to avoid the mandatory jail time linked to VICAR.
The opinion delivered on March 21, 2025, featured a stark disagreement and some questioning of each other's position between Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote for the majority, and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the other dissenting vote. The five years sentenced from the VICAR statute are in addition to another 25 years Delligatti received for other convictions.
Defending the Family Business
In 2014, Genovese crime family member Salvatore "Fat Sal" Delligatti had an issue with the running of his illegal gambling business in Queens, New York. Joseph Bonelli was interfering with the operation. A gas station owner was also being harassed by Bonelli and paid Delligatti to eliminate the threat.
According to court records, Delligatti gave a partner a .38 revolver and $5,000 to murder Bonelli. Although several members of the Crips gang came along to help, the first attempt was aborted when Bonelli came home with another person. Delligatti ordered a second attempt. The police, acting on a tip, apprehended the partner and his support team when they returned the next day.
Delligatti was indicted and convicted on several charges that included attempted murder in aid of racketeering and possession of a firearm in furtherance of an act of violence, both falling under VICAR. He appealed the firearm conviction, using the argument that since he never committed an act of violence, he couldn't be guilty of the VICAR statute violation.
In 2022, the Second Circuit Court rejected Delligatti's theory. In upholding the lower court's decision, the panel ruled that since attempted murder is considered a crime of violence under New York law, it qualifies under VICAR. Delligatti's final chance was at SCOTUS.
In ruling against Delligatti, the Court held that knowingly or intentionally causing bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force, whether through act or omission. An affirmative action isn't required to qualify as an act of violence, which could also be accomplished through the omission of action. The majority cited United States v. Castleman as precedent for their decision, where the court reached the same conclusion involving a different statute.
To put it more concretely, Justice Thomas used the example of sprinkling poison in a drink or abandoning your spouse to die of the elements. In both cases, bodily harm occurred and was a direct cause of the death, even if the killer used indirect means. This, the majority held, involves the use of physical force.
I'm Going To Have To Go Ahead and Sort of Disagree With You There
In a somewhat fiery dissent, Gorsuch argues that the majority "whistles past the terms Congress gave us" in VICAR by giving it far too broad a ruling that deviates from the statute. He asserts that under the majority's decision, a lifeguard who chooses not to try to save a drowning swimmer could be found guilty of an act of violence.
Gorsuch's interpretation is that a person who “causes bodily injury by omission” does not begin to meet the criteria set out by VICAR. He also accuses his fellow Justices of "breezing past" the necessary context required for a correct ruling.
While Fat Sal would agree with Gorsuch's reasoning, his opinion doesn't have the force of law. Faced with spending the next 30 years in prison, Delligatti probably wishes he'd never gotten involved with the gun and just taken the cannoli instead.
Related Resources
- Petitioning and Opposing Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court (FindLaw's Litigation and Disputes)
- Racketeering/RICO (FindLaw's Criminal Law)
- How Does the U.S. Supreme Court Decide Whether To Hear a Case? (FindLaw's Legal System)